Crowdsourced Legislature

[Psilosopher?]

This was an idea i had while laying in bed, high as a kite. Just thinking about the ineptitude of politicians and lawmakers with making laws that the common person can understand. There are also a fair few laws that don't need to exist, and only exist to be exploited. So here came the idea of crowdsourced legislature. People vote on issues and laws that should be highlighted, and once it reaches a certain threshold, either a parliamentary debate is conducted or a public civilian referendum is released. In the event that a certain threshold of civilian engagement is not met, the issue/law is put on a "to-do list". No point in enacting something if only 30% of people were involved. How is it democracy if we "choose" people to make decisions for us? That's why politicians are synonymous with corruption, they only served themselves with the illusion of helping the people. Back in the day, it would much harder to ask the majority of people what they thought of certain issues. With the advent of the internet, this is not only possible but also rather easy.

Democracy died a long time ago. Demagogy has robbed it's grave, and put on it's clothes. It's all an illusion to keep us distracted.


What do you think?

 

[Exitwound]

I think that such change would be hard to push. Because currently in order to introduce this change, you need your representatives to introduce it. But by introducing such change, conflicts with their job. It removes some power from them and gives it to the people. Even democratic leaders will be opposed to such change, unless they have no other choice, they wouldn't let it pass, because ultimately it lessens or even strips their power.

On the other hand - what good it would do? Just look at recent Brexit referendum results. Did UK really make a good choice?

 

[dragonrider]

In california the so-called common man voted in a referendum to increase public spending and to lower taxes. The state went bankrupt.

In columbia, the same common man was asked if he rather wanted peace or war, and he choose war.

In austria, a the makers of a TV show (pretended to have) attached explosives to a dog, and asked the viewers whether the dog should be blown up or not.
Guess what the common man choose....

Call me crazy, but i don't trust people.

 

[Psilosopher?]

On the other hand - what good it would do? Just look at recent Brexit referendum results. Did UK really make a good choice?

That's what happens with sensationalist hype. Also, Brexit is beyond just some ordinary legislation. That was a major, MAJOR decision that had many facets. There were nationalist, racist, anti-immigrant and many other rhetorics involved. The UK also recently passed a bizarre porn bill. This is what happens when stuffy people in suits think for the commoner.

Call me crazy, but i don't trust people.

Oh yeah, i fully agree with this sentiment.


However, Finland has trialed something like this, and it works.

Blog TheGovlab

thegovlab.org

Political leaders see this as a threat because it strips them of a lot of power. Which is the way it should have been from the start.

I wouldn't trust your average joe with important decisions. But that's where the power of group think may resolve this. If anything is to be learned from the selfie sickness, it's that people do what other people do. And this is direct engagement of the public with politics. Not choosing our choosers, but actually having a say on issues one at a time. Autocracy doesn't work. Demagogy doesn't work. Meritocracy would work, but not in places like America since it has negligible merit.

 

[Intezam]

no....this must never be allowed

 

[hug46]

I wouldn't trust your average joe with important decisions. But that's where the power of group think may resolve this.

Would you trust a group of average Joes? I would posit that they would be even worse at making imporatant decisions........Groupthink

 

[Praxis.]

In california the so-called common man voted in a referendum to increase public spending and to lower taxes. The state went bankrupt.

In columbia, the same common man was asked if he rather wanted peace or war, and he choose war.

In austria, a the makers of a TV show (pretended to have) attached explosives to a dog, and asked the viewers whether the dog should be blown up or not.
Guess what the common man choose....

Call me crazy, but i don't trust people.

I wouldn't trust your average joe with important decisions. But that's where the power of group think may resolve this.

Would you trust a group of average Joes? I would posit that they would be even worse at making imporatant decisions........Groupthink

Tyranny of the majority

 

[Psilosopher?]

There's a reason why this worked in Finland. Finland has the most effective education system in the world.

America is too far gone for something as radical as this. America is one of the worst examples of anything to do with legislature.


My ideal form of government is meritocracy, but those with power don't want to give up their position. And thus, they perpetuate this vicious cycle of condoning toxic behaviour, through setting an example which others see as the norm. There's a reason why politicians are synonymous with corruption.


The average joe needs to be educated, and have the ability for critical thinking.

 

[Psilosopher?]

See? I ain't the only one who is fed up with democracy.


[youtube]